In unitary States, the central government is supreme, and citizens are subject to the same single power throughout the national territory.

This does not preclude the existence of subnational governments, which may also be elected directly by the population and have (some) political and administrative autonomy. Subnational governments, however, exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate or devolve.

There is generally some level of decentralisation in unitary States, depending on the extent of subnational powers, responsibilities and resources, and the degree of autonomy they have over these different elements. Decentralised responsibilities may include regulatory powers.

In a unitary State, subnational units can be created and abolished, and their powers may be broadened and narrowed by the central government.

In federal States or federations, sovereignty is shared between the federal government and the self-governing regional entities, which may possess their own constitutions.

The self-governing status of the federated states may not be altered by the federal government without mutual agreement. A constitutional provision or a judicial interpretation assigns certain powers and responsibilities to the federal government and the federated states.

Generally, the federal government has exclusive authority over certain matters such as foreign policy, defence, finance, and criminal justice, whereas the federated states have extensive competencies.

In most federations, local governments are creations of the federated states and are therefore subject to their jurisdiction (notably, Brazil, for example, deviates from this pattern in that municipal authorities are not subordinate to their respective states).

The status, organisation, responsibilities and financing of these local governments are determined by federated state constitutions and laws, which often vary from one state to another.

Local governments do not have independent ties with the federal government, and any reforms to them must be approved by the federated states rather than the federal authority (as is the case in Australia, Canada and the United States).

Federated states may have direct elections for key governmental and judicial positions.

Federalism has an impact on legislative reform concerning children’s rights.

In federations, provincial or state legislatures have a responsibility and could take the lead in enacting appropriate legislation. This may be specifically relevant in case the central government is slow to make the legislative changes needed to incorporate the rights and principles contained in the CRC into national law.

At the same time, when the national legislature has enacted laws on children’s rights, state legislatures might decide to enact legislation that recognises additional rights, defines children’s rights more broadly, or establishes mechanisms for the protection of those rights that are better suited to regional realities.

There are examples of federal States in which one or more states or provincial governments have adopted legislation on children’s rights that is more far-reaching than the legislation adopted by the national legislature.

In many federal States, the problem is the limited power of the federal or central government to legislate over certain matters, such as immigration, criminal or family law. In such States, the central government may be faced with a choice between amending constitutional law, or resorting to methods such as advocacy, training and capacity-building and placing conditions on financial transfers to induce provincial or state governments to enact legislation that complies with obligations contained in the CRC.

In others, federal law that in principle is binding on states or provinces is not adequately enforced because provincial or state authorities do not create the infrastructure or programmes – whether juvenile courts, schools or health services – needed to implement the law.